RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2011-00884
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NO
________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
Her general (under honorable conditions) be upgraded to
honorable.
________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
She served her country and was discharged for medical reasons.
She was involved in a dispute with two other servicemembers and
decided to take the general discharge. She was advised that she
could request an upgrade of her discharge after six months. She
served with honor and would have loved to have had an
opportunity to retire.
The applicants complete submission is at Exhibit A.
________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
The applicant was notified of an administrative discharge board
hearing, on 25 Apr 85, for misconduct, specifically, due to an
investigation of allegations that the applicant was involved in
homosexual acts with an adult female. Specifically, on or about
(o/a) 10 Feb 85, through a security police report, it was
learned of the applicants involvement in homosexual acts with
an adult female on at least four occasions; and o/a 7 Jul 84,
the applicant left without authority her appointed place of
duty, and o/a 8 Jul 84, the applicant failed to go to her
appointed place of duty. The discharge authority recommended
the applicant receive an honorable discharge; however, the
discharge process was deferred pending the outcome of a dual-
action process on 9 Sep 85.
The applicant was also charged with making false official
statements and filing false travel vouchers for per diem and
travel pay. On 2 Oct 85, charges were preferred and on 9 Oct 85
they were referred to trial by special court-martial. On 11 Dec
85, the applicant submitted her request for discharge in lieu of
trial by court-martial through her counsel.
On 6 Jan 86, the discharge authority directed an under other
than honorable conditions (UOTHC) discharge. However, the
discharge was held in abeyance pending the outcome of a dual-
action process.
The applicant was processed for a medical determination. The
Formal Physical Evaluation Board (FPEB) recommended a disability
discharge with a compensable rating of 20 percent. Her case was
forwarded to the Secretary of the Air Force Personnel Council
(SAFPC) for review and disposition, and they recommended the
applicant be discharged with a general discharge.
The applicant was discharged, on 6 Nov 86, by reason of physical
disability with a compensable disability rating of 20 percent
and entitlement to severance pay, with service characterized as
general (under honorable conditions).
On 8 Sep 11, the applicant was invited to provide additional
evidence pertaining to her activities since leaving the service
(Exhibit C).
________________________________________________________________
THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:
1. The applicant has exhausted all remedies provided by
existing law or regulations.
2. The application was not timely filed; however, it is in the
interest of justice to excuse the failure to timely file.
3. Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to
demonstrate the existence of error or injustice. We took notice
of the applicant's complete submission in judging the merits of
the case; however, we find no evidence of an error or injustice
that occurred during the discharge process. Based on the
available evidence of record, it appears the discharge was
consistent with the substantive requirements of the discharge
regulation and within the commander's discretionary authority.
The applicant has provided no evidence which would lead us to
believe the characterization of the service was contrary to the
provisions of the governing regulation, unduly harsh, or
disproportionate to the offenses committed. The applicant was
provided due process, including having her case considered by a
medical evaluation board, resulting in a disability separation,
with severance pay. In addition, considering her overall record
of service and the events which led to her separation, we are
not persuaded that an upgrade of the characterization of her
discharge is warranted on the basis of clemency. Therefore, in
the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no basis upon
which to recommend granting the relief sought.
________________________________________________________________
THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT:
The applicant be notified that the evidence presented did not
demonstrate the existence of material error or injustice; that
the application was denied without a personal appearance; and
that the application will only be reconsidered upon the
submission of newly discovered relevant evidence not considered
with this application.
________________________________________________________________
The following members of the Board considered AFBCMR Docket
Number BC-2011-00884 in Executive Session on 13 October 2011,
under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 4 Feb 11.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, AFBCMR, dated 8 Sep 11, w/atchs.
Panel Chair
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2004-02629
The applicant provides a personnel statement and two supporting statements. The commander charged the applicant for not listing his 24 Feb 83 arrest for receiving a stolen credit card on his 30 Jul 84 Application for Enlistment. On 4 Dec 95, the Board denied the applicant’s request to have his narrative reason for discharge changed from “Fraudulent Enlistment” to “Administrative Disclosure.” A copy of the Record of Proceedings is provided at Exhibit B. Pursuant to the Board's request, the...
AF | BCMR | CY2008 | BC-2007-00319
The complete BCMR Medical Consultant evaluation is at Exhibit C. The SAF/MRB (Legal Advisor) states the applicant was administratively discharged for a personality disorder. If (and only if) the applicant has established she should have been found unfit for duty, then the case should have been dual processed, and there then appears to be an error upon which to consider basing a record correction. The complete BCMR Medical Consultant's addendum is at Exhibit...
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 01651
On 15 May 12, the Secretary of the Air Force Personnel Council (SAFPC) considered the applicants case as a dual-action case and determined the applicant should be discharged by execution of the approved discharge action for misconduct. DPFD states the preponderance of evidence reflects that no error or injustice occurred during the disability process or at the time of separation. The complete DPFD evaluation is at Exhibit...
The policy on homosexual conduct does not require the express statement , \\I am a homosexual" in order to support a discharge. The applicant was provided an opportunity to present her case to an administrative discharge board; however, after consulting with her military counsel, she waived her right to do so, contingent upon her receipt of no less than an honorable discharge. Although the discharge notification letter indicated that she was being recommended for discharge for homosexual...
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 03241
Her diagnosis of Personality Disorder is in error. Therefore, the Board determined that execution of the previously approved AFI 36-3206 action is appropriate. The complete DPFD evaluation is at Exhibit C. The BCMR Medical Consultant recommends granting the applicant alternative relief by changing the reason for discharge to Secretarial Authority. The Medical Consultant states that he found sufficient evidence of an alternative choice available to the applicant's commander in selecting...
AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2006-03835
The preponderance of evidence of the record shows that the applicant’s medical condition was not completely considered at the time of administrative discharge. That said, they found absolutely no link between the member’s misconduct and his diagnosed asthma and opines that if the case had been processed as a dual action, the Personnel Council would have directed administrative discharge IAW with AFI 36-3208. Additionally, we took note of the SAFPC determination that had the applicant’s...
He remained on the TDRL until 4 Feb 88, at which time he was permanently retired with a 50 percent disability rating. On the second examination, the PEB diagnosed him with Agoraphobia with panic attacks, with a severe industrial impairment and recommended that he be permanently retired with a 50 percent disability rating. In DPPD’s view, the applicant has not submitted any material or documentation to show he was improperly rated or processed under the provisions of military disability...
AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2006-03754
_________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: The applicant’s last period of active duty in the Air Force began on 8 Feb 82. On 23 Mar 88, the discharge authority approved the separation and directed the applicant be discharged with a general (under honorable conditions) discharge. As of this date, this office has not received a response (Exhibit E).
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2005-02752
___________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: Applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 2 December 1982, for a period of four years in the grade of airman first class. On 19 Dec 86, applicant applied to the Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB) requesting her discharge be upgraded to an honorable discharge. The applicant applied to the Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB) for an upgrade of her discharge.
AF | BCMR | CY2008 | BC-2007-02263
_________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATIONS: The BCMR Medical Consultant is of the opinion that no change in the record is warranted. Even if a Medical Evaluation Board was undertaken, it would be highly unlikely that her disability rating would have been higher than the 10 percent rating awarded four years later by the DVA. After a thorough review of the evidence of record and applicant’s submission, we are not persuaded that the applicant’s...